"WM" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote > On 16 Jun., 11:48, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote ... >> >> >> >> > By induction we prove: There is no initial segment of the (ANTI)diagonal >> > that is not as a line in the list. >> >> Right, therefore the anti-diagonal does not contain any pattern of digits >> that are not computable. >> > Sorry, you misquoted me. I wrote: > By induction we prove: There is no initial segment of the diagonal > that is not as a line in the list. And there is no part of the > diagonal that is not in one single line of the list.
Sorry I thought you meant the anti-diagonal is computed to every finite prefix as this is a more direct contradiction to any new sequences of digits being possible.